Harvey deserves credit for his way of playing - just not because the way was new but rather because it helped to score goals/prevent goals against. Full points for dominating (whether by traditional or innovative means), but no extra points for being innovative.

But maybe that's a sophistical approach in your eyes.

See, that's ******** to me.
First off, Harvey took a big risk playing that way, playing against the norm. Especially during that time in the NHL.
Second, he changed the way the game was and is played to this day.

You can give it more credit, the same credit or less credit than I do but you have to give it some.

My comp in this thread has to do with Harvey and Lidstrom, pretty sure I have shown how the voting records would favour Lidstrom over Harvey.

If I wanted to address Lidstrom to another player I would have done so.

But it seems like you don't want to acknowledge what I have put forward and want to distract things with you favorite topic.

I think that the increased competition and time period where Lidstrom has his accomplishments pushes him over the edge if there is any doubt in a direct peer versus peer comp.

No, no, I already told you that you have a better argument for Lidstrom vs Harvey than you do for Lidstrom vs Bourque.
Which really isn't surprising considering that Harvey and Lidstrom played very similarly. Until you factor in Harvey's huge edge in physical play and puck possession/game control that is. Not to mention Harvey's innovating and changing the game.

Sorry if I'm distracted by your sudden change in how much weight All-star nods and direct competition should get.
I'm just so used to hearing you downplaying such things

odd though, I thought you were a Northeastern Transplant to NC Tarheel. Are your neighbours in the Containment Area for Relocated Yankees aware that your actually native to the area? Are you allowed to even be living behind those gates?

They put a few natives inside the town limits to make sure the transplants get along. We're like game wardens

Seriously though, no, I've never lived in the north. Interesting that the "CARY" acronym has become more than a local joke!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theokritos

In other words: the size of the talent pool is a relevant factor in the evaluation of every player in history - except Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux

Basically, yes. Those three shattered the curve. Whether they played in 1960 or 2012, they were simply THAT much better than anyone else in the world. The talent pool in any given year consists of "everyone who is not Wayne, Mario or Bobby".

Of course, there's always the possibility that one of the early greats could have fit into that category, but it's practically impossible to find out.

Basically, yes. Those three shattered the curve. Whether they played in 1960 or 2012, they were simply THAT much better than anyone else in the world. The talent pool in any given year consists of "everyone who is not Wayne, Mario or Bobby".

Of course, there's always the possibility that one of the early greats could have fit into that category, but it's practically impossible to find out.

It's more accurate way of thinking than labeling every all-time great as an outlier (or genius). And then pointing out that genius is genius no matter the era. But with those three you knew who was the best player in the league, every single year during their prime. Same can't be said about most others. You could argue that Harvey was not even the best player on his team during some years. Same with Lidstrom.

Although one could argue about adding Howe to those three. But that's a different topic.

...Interesting that the "CARY" acronym has become more than a local joke!... Basically, yes. Those three shattered the curve. Whether they played in 1960 or 2012, they were simply THAT much better than anyone else in the world.

... I have friends in Charlotte. Most amusing that.... not sure I agree with your inclusion of Mario in the same bracket as Orr & Gretzky though Tarheel. He was an incredible player, unbelievable moves, but did he "re-think & re-shape" the way the game was actually fundamentally played positionally? Gretzky, Orr & Lemieux, Roy, Parent, Hasek & others from the crease out could control a game and its momentum, swings, dips & ultimately its outcome through sheer force of will & talent.

In fact, I think its debatable that even Orr makes it into the Supernatural Category, as in many respects he was a product of Darwinian evolution. From Shore through Harvey, while contemporaneously there were in fact numerous rushing defenceman playing through the 50's & early 60's while Orr was still knee high to a grasshopper. Tim Horton for example. He was a rushing defenceman before he got nailed early, broken bones, unable to crank it into 4th gear thereafter, playing stay at home. Brad Park played in Orr's shadow, so lets say there was no Bobby Orr. Brad Park in retrospect would have inherited the mantle passed on through Shore & Harvey; much copied thereafter by the likes of Coffey & so on. He wasnt as good as Orr, but good enough to be considered even today "great".... not sure if Im being clear?

... I have friends in Charlotte. Most amusing that.... not sure I agree with your inclusion of Mario in the same bracket as Orr & Gretzky though Tarheel. He was an incredible player, unbelievable moves, but did he "re-think & re-shape" the way the game was actually fundamentally played positionally?

What do you mean, Lemieux was'nt better than Gretzky in any way? He sure gave the world hockey like it's never been seen before. When it comes to Orr, he sure played at a level no-one had seen before. Who would you say was Gretzkys closest match playwise, i mean before him.

not sure I agree with your inclusion of Mario in the same bracket as Orr & Gretzky though Tarheel. He was an incredible player, unbelievable moves, but did he "re-think & re-shape" the way the game was actually fundamentally played positionally?

Does it matter? Lemieux still blows all the innovators (except Gretzky) out of the water. Innovative is not necessarily the same as supernatural, is it?

What do you mean, Lemieux was'nt better than Gretzky in any way? He sure gave the world hockey like it's never been seen before. When it comes to Orr, he sure played at a level no-one had seen before. Who would you say was Gretzkys closest match playwise, i mean before him.

Not following your question DY. Are you asking me do I think Lemieux was better, more valuable than Wayne Gretzky? The latter was a total one-off freak show. There has been no one, before he came along or since playing at a forward position with whom one can make comparisons, and that includes Lemieux.... as for Orr, while its true no one had ever seen the sustained, consistent domination of a player in the defensive role dominate to the extent that Orr did, prior to his arrival there were brief, fleeting examples of defenceman who did in fact do precisely that, however, it was coached out of them, rigid discipline & harnesses applied. Stifled.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theokritos

Does it matter? Lemieux still blows all the innovators (except Gretzky) out of the water. Innovative is not necessarily the same as supernatural, is it?

Gretzky I would call Supernatural 99% of the time, only falling to Earth as he aged but even then, far more intelligent & far seeing than everyone else out there. Absolutely reliant upon his sixth senses. Lemieux I rank as the 3rd best player of All Time, but of a more temporal, down to Earth proto-typical type of player. A Jean Beliveau, but in my book, much better, and yes, "innovative", but only in so much as he was a much an athlete as he was an artist. What he did cant be copied.

The only way I could see Mario Lemieux not being the 2nd greatest center on a list is if someone flat-out refuses to acknowledge that the two best players at a position could come from the same era (thereby also punishing Maurice Richard and one of Roy/Hasek). Or maybe he just really likes Jean Beliveau?

They put a few natives inside the town limits to make sure the transplants get along. We're like game wardens

Seriously though, no, I've never lived in the north. Interesting that the "CARY" acronym has become more than a local joke!

Basically, yes. Those three shattered the curve. Whether they played in 1960 or 2012, they were simply THAT much better than anyone else in the world. The talent pool in any given year consists of "everyone who is not Wayne, Mario or Bobby".

Of course, there's always the possibility that one of the early greats could have fit into that category, but it's practically impossible to find out.

Harvey didn't come to the NHL till he was 23 when he played a half season. He was playing in the same league that Beliveau played in. The same league that the Habs had to buy outright because Jean was going to be quite content to continue playing there.
I figure if one can try to use Lidstrom's seasons in the SEL before coming to the NHL, then I should be able to try and use Harvey's seasons in the QSHL.

Once Harvey did start in the NHL, no one knew what to make of him in the beginning. They perceived him as lazy and frustrating for the first few years until they saw how effective his play style actually was.Effective enough that within a decade, every D-man was playing that way or being trained to play that way.
His first all-star nod came in his 4th full season. By the end of his 14th season he had 10 1rst team all-star nods and a 2nd before his exile to the Rags and the subsequent black-balling over the Union took its toll on him.
Last I checked, Lidstrom had the exact same number of 1rst team all-star nods and one more 2nd than Harvey.

Even though he got such a late start in the NHL, he still played 20 seasons. He was 45 when he finally retired.

Kelly got a lot of attention early on because he was much flashier, especially on offense.
Once all D-men adapted Harvey's positional approach to the game by the late 50's, Kelly's offensive style was being more contained and less effective.

Lets talk about non-measurable things for a second.
Like how Lidstrom's defensive stats were inflated due to the DPE in exactly the same way that D-men's offensive stats were inflated in the 80's.

not sure I agree with your inclusion of Mario in the same bracket as Orr & Gretzky though Tarheel. He was an incredible player, unbelievable moves, but did he "re-think & re-shape" the way the game was actually fundamentally played positionally? Gretzky, Orr & Lemieux, Roy, Parent, Hasek & others from the crease out could control a game and its momentum, swings, dips & ultimately its outcome through sheer force of will & talent.

I feel that Orr and Mario were simply forces of nature, men who had a talent so unique that they were less "outliers" and more "phenomena". Closer to artists, as you say, than athletes in that they could not only achieve their goals but do so at their own pace and by methods of their own choosing. Why bother grinding for goals when you can shoot the faceoff directly into the net? Why bother blocking shots when you can kill a whole penalty by skating figure-8s around the other team? I honestly believe that Mario's petulant attitude toward the league in his 30s was akin to a PhD forced to teach remedial high school classes. A guy with that level of ability was wasting his time in the DPE.

Gretzky, I agree he's on yet another plane altogether. That's why I have him #1 all time. He's a true athletic genius, operating at a level that goes beyond physical talent and into higher-level cognition that we probably won't fully understand for a long, long time. He's going to seem more impressive in about 50 years when we're still waiting for someone to approach that level.

I see even "historians" underrate Brad Park and overrate Lidstrom, put Lidstrom in his era, he doesn't win those Norris trophies playing against Orr either. not much difference between the two, don't care if I get flamed!

I see even "historians" underrate Brad Park and overrate Lidstrom, put Lidstrom in his era, he doesn't win those Norris trophies playing against Orr either. not much difference between the two, don't care if I get flamed!

Put anyone in that era against Orr and he won't win Norris trophies. That includes Harvey, Bourque, Shore, Potvin, etc. So you better come up with better case why there is no difference between Lidstrom and Brad Park.

Put anyone in that era against Orr and he won't win Norris trophies. That includes Harvey, Bourque, Shore, Potvin, etc. So you better come up with better case why there is no difference between Lidstrom and Brad Park.

Brad Park gets penalized for playing in that period of time, while Lidstrom gets overrated for winning his norris trophies when the competition was fairly weak when he started winning them! Lidstrom is top 10, not top 5

Brad Park gets penalized for playing in that period of time, while Lidstrom gets overrated for winning his norris trophies when the competition was fairly weak when he started winning them! Lidstrom is top 10, not top 5

How exactly is Brad Park penalized? He was voted as 11th defenseman of all-time. I would say that this is pretty damn good. And people don't really use a lack of Norris trophies against him. At least I haven't seen it.

Brad Park gets penalized for playing in that period of time, while Lidstrom gets overrated for winning his norris trophies when the competition was fairly weak when he started winning them! Lidstrom is top 10, not top 5

After Orr, Park had fairly weak competition himself...Take a look at the years he finishes as Norris runner-up to Orr. If you give Park credit for those Norris trophies, how are his wins against the likes of Lapperiere, White, Stapleton, Tremblay stronger than Lidstrom's against Niedermayer, Pronger, Chara, Blake?

After Orr, Park had fairly weak competition himself...Take a look at the years he finishes as Norris runner-up to Orr. If you give Park credit for those Norris trophies, how are his wins against the likes of Lapperiere, White, Stapleton, Tremblay stronger than Lidstrom's against Niedermayer, Pronger, Chara, Blake?

Pronger has been the only true, consistent competition to Lidstrom(Niedermayer didn't become a no.1 til about 2003), if Park had gotten those Norris' that Orr won, you honestly don't think he wouldn't be rated higher? if you place Lidstrom in that time against Orr, he is not rated top 5 and that is my point

... thats right. All you have to do is is look at the number, add the %, Bobs yer Uncle. In Orr's case, 44% of the time. His greatest attribute was obviously in his ability to "read" both ends of the ice, like his mind was 30' above the play, but most importantly, his skating abilities. Deceptively fast for the era combined with excellent hands. Almost impossible today to imagine a player being allowed to rag the puck the way he did almost game in game out without getting benched, sent down, probably cut. We used to see a lot more one man end-to-enders'. I miss them.

Pronger has been the only true, consistent competition to Lidstrom(Niedermayer didn't become a no.1 til about 2003), if Park had gotten those Norris' that Orr won, you honestly don't think he wouldn't be rated higher? if you place Lidstrom in that time against Orr, he is not rated top 5 and that is my point

Pierre Pilote won 3 Norrises himself and ranked under Park. If Park won those 4 Norrises he lost to Orr, they would have been over weaker competition than either Pilote or Lidstrom.

Do you think Park should also rank over Chelios or do you think they both should rank over Lidstrom?